Ed Greene's epiphany: death of the DSLR

edgreene · June 4, 2006

Robert Lee: You're essentially describing a MF system with a digital back. It's not necessary to wait another half decade, they've been available for a long time.I do not know of a MF one-piece camera with a fixed lens system approximating that of the various superzooms, which is what my proposed (predicted) ``Wundercamera`` would be. And ``Wundercamera`` would not have or utilize a ``digital back`` per se, but interchangeable sensors. Then again, I don't know every camera out there.And yes, there are "3,000 Euros and up, according to the bells and whistles we order." "No provision would be made for the new units to use interchangeable lenses (why?), though the brilliant 4/3rds system..."So this is a fixed lens (fast hyperzoom too I suppose) camera with a 6cm x 5cm sensor? Doesn't sound like a probable product.Your question here has prompted a question which has bothered me about my OP and that is my OPﾒs predicted sensor size should have said: ``645``, instead of ``6x5``.And with that grievous error corrected, I restate my original premise citing correct sensor dimensions: ````Trickle- down`` (cheap) models will be somewhat limited as to their ability to store, broadcast-etc. but all will (would) be at least 645 (not 6 x 5 as I mistyped before) (replaceable/upgradeable) medium format sized sensors. Makes more sense now, especially since there is no 6 x 5 medium format, which apparently no one else noted. ``Mea Culpa`` for the sensor size confusion.

edgreene · June 4, 2006

Kelly Flanigan: Most digital capture devices have fixed lenses, like cellphones and the zillion P&S digitals.Better not let the DSLR people hear you spout such blasphemies!There are millions of folks who have hung up their old film 35mm slrs, and gone straight to high end P&S digitals.Well not ``hung up`` exactly, but ``shelved``, like mine most times.Removeable lens digitals are abit of a niche market, are a shrinking proportion of the entire digital camera sales pie. The average pnet person thinks most digital users are dslr users, and that camera makers will be bringing out low cost backs, camera bodies to fit their old lenses from 50 years ago. :) Pnet folks seem to be a warped bunch, and dont equate that alot of folks are happy with a P&S digital for alot of their images.What I said about DSLR owners? Goes double for pnet folks :).Proprietary lens mounts have always been a way to make money. A Kodak Ektra, Nikon F, Leica M, Exakta VX, Minolta SRT101, Canon EOS, and Miranda have different mounts for a reason. In a perfect world, goverment controlled :) there would be only one shoe for women, one song for teenagers, one camera lens mount. :)The advent of the 4/3rds system spells doom for one or two of them right off. Panasonic's own L1 could be the precursor of my ``Wundercamera``, though it too is a DSLR, but a ``system`` camera body, not proprietary per se.

kelly_flanigan1 · June 4, 2006

Removeable lens digital users have a higher warranty cost. They whine more, get dust on their exposed sensors. A sealed camera solves this problem somewhat. I doubt a fixed lens 6x5cm sensor digital will evolve. Wundercameras are already at Walmart for joe six pack; with 12x optical zooms, 8 megapixels, and decent performance. Walmart is the largest store in the USA, many have already dropped carrying Minolta and Nikon slrs, and only carry a token film Canon EOS. Many walmarts that use to carry the canon drebel have dropped them. To a dreamer, the dslr is the growing market. Alot of the general public will never buy a dslr, and are perfectly happy with their high end P&S digital. This concept scares alot of folks, they want their dslr to have a going lens line, not a stagnant one. Hopefully it wont be like this, but it sure seems like the wishfull thinking folks did when super-8 came out, and moderate priced d and c mount super-8 bodies never appeared, and fixed zoom lenses mostly ruled.

h._p. · June 4, 2006

OK, I'll play...

I got a Lumix FZ-20 for Christmas and it was close to what Ed's talking about but... The electronic viewfinder didn't work for me - I've got too used to optical finders over the years to be comfortable with the grainy image. The zoom range was marvellous but the pictures at the long end seemed to be soft to me. It was pleasantly light but that meant there was no inertia to help with hand-holding. So: lots of trade-offs that weren't right for me but I hope will be OK for its new owner. I've got myself an old Eos 10d now and it seems to have fixed all the things I didn't like about the Lumix. In my opinion, the Wundercamera is still a fair way off, though one never knows what the manufacturers have under development...<div></div>

edgreene · June 4, 2006

Andrew Robertson: People have been spouting this kind of nonsense``Nonsense``? An honest observation/prediction is ``nonsense``? for years now, and the DSLRs still keep on coming.Pushed by those who thought or think they�ll miss out on something if they don�t own a DSLR. Even as the DSLRs `keep coming``, high-end P&Ss keep gaining-fast.You will never cram every option that an SLR camera **SYSTEM** gives you into a digicam.Nearly every SLR option is already available to digicam owners excepting real wide angle, (corrected) lenses. But even there, in any digicam capable of mounting additional lenses, wide angle OEM lenses and third party wide angle lenses abound.Yes, wheee, digicams have image stabilization with a 400mm+ equivalent focal length,``Errr``, that 400+= (420mm for some, 432mm for others) but they are still in reality very short lenses with proportionately large depth of field.DOF which can be put to good use. Limited depth of field is also a severe handicap in macro imaging for instance, wherein I have to use either expensive ``macro`` lenses on my SLR or attach expensive diopter lenses. With my FZ20 for example, great macro with great depth of field comes with the lens, with no additional costs attending.What about tilt / shift,You win. But then, how many ``Joe Sixpack`` SLR owners also own tilt-shift lenses? How many have even seen a Tilt/shift lens?ultra low light purposes, etc?P&Ss are gaining: my FZ20 is an f/2.8 lens throughout the entire 36-432mm zoom range and able to image alongside any f/2.8 analog lens. you'll never cram that all into one camera.You/we don't have ``that`` (whatever) in an SLR. Low-end DSLRs are severely crippled in their abilty to utilize all the benefits of high-end DSLRs. ``Cherry picking`` photographic features from the world of photography to hold up SLRs won't work and further, it makes for a disingenuous argument. Of course the obverse is true of nearly everything you say: you (``Joe Sixpack``) do not usually have all those ``exotic`` imaging capacities either. Each feature you named requires special lenses, which again, ``Joe`` usually doesn't own or cannot afford.If anything, the kind of camera you are prophesying will never happen or fail horribly, as the average joe already has a phone-cam,You mean of course the average ``YOUNG` Joe, a sometimes clueless population who also has embraced Ipods and other electronic paraphernalia issued like candy to candy hungry kids.the photographer has a 'real' camera.By `real` I suppose you mean SLR/DSLR bodies? By those definitions then, P&Ss are not `real` cameras. But since neither of us has a say in what a ``camera`` is, most of us call P&Ss `real cameras`. They might sell, but just as the Sony 828 and N1 have failed to overtake SLR cameras your (essentially the same idea) camera will fail too.``My`` camera is an amalgam of thoughts and predictions coalesced in a series of projections. Not my thoughts, but others. Not my predictions either. Putting all of them together here in my ``epiphany`` was an exercise in editing, since most were/are already floating out there in the non-proprietary photographic ether."though the brilliant 4/3rds system may still be lurking at the lower end of the imaging spectrum"

Kind of like it is now? (ducks)In the Interim, I�ll likely buy the Panasonic 4/3rds L1 with the kit lens, waiting for the 50-200 OLY and the projected 50-500 Whosever.My ``Wundercamera``, like all before it may not be the be all to end all cameras. At 3,000 Euros plus, it won�t fit in the budgets of many ``Joe Sixpacks`` either. But for the ``Pros``, whose multiple bodies & ``plethora`` of lenses costs them into the many tens of thousands, a +3,000 Euro ``Wundercamera`` will be a lark, a literal walk in the park.One trend I`ve noticed in forums is how many SLR/DSLR owners also own and shoot high-end, high performance P&Ss, many of the P&Ss being Panasonic FZs (Fluzis). Other Panasonic cameras, all of them with fast lenses and image stabilization (every Panasonic digital camera has image stabilization, an industry first), are literally ``finding their way`` into the pockets of journalists, reporters, engineers, doctors, dentists, insurance investigators-etc., the Lumix Lx1 being a particular ``pocket`` favorite.As for sales? The ``pros`` can�t wait: light weight, medium format, fast ultrazoom lenses, less than the weight (and cost) of a Canon EOS DSLR ``Robocamera`` with one f/2.8 lens, able to record two or more minutes of broadcast quality video, replaceable (upgradeable) sensors and image stabilization all in an open (non-propriety) format? Hell, some folks, many of them ``Joe Sixpacks``, will hock their houses or sell their Bassin' boats for a ``Wundercamera``.

kevinconnery · June 4, 2006

<ul>"When(ever) discourteous behavior/language/inferences surface, rancor ensues." (EG)</ul>

Yes, it does. Claiming something was discourteous when there's little evidence of it decreases communication: "I was having fun until your bile surfaced to spoil it."

<ul>"And ``Wundercamera`` would not have or utilize a ``digital back`` per se, but interchangeable sensors. Then again, I don't know every camera out there." (EG)</ul>

Can you elaborate on how an interchangeable sensor would differ from a "digital back"? No existing sensors carry the support electronics, and each sensor requires different logic, if only to handle different cell geometry or size--much less differences in filtration, if a Bayer mosaic (or similar, such as Sony's RGBE) is used.

<ul>

"Most digital capture devices have fixed lenses, like cellphones and the zillion P&S digitals." (KF)

"Better not let the DSLR people hear you spout such blasphemies!" (EG)</ul>

How so? Kelly identified a fact. You're mocking a position that hasn't been shown.

<ul>" but they are still in reality very short lenses with proportionately large depth of field." (AR)

"DOF which can be put to good use. Limited depth of field is also a severe handicap in macro imaging for instance, wherein I have to use either expensive ``macro`` lenses on my SLR or attach expensive diopter lenses. With my FZ20 for example, great macro with great depth of field comes with the lens, with no additional costs attending."</ul>

That's great if (and only if) a strong depth of field is desired. While that's beneficial in some circumstances, it's equally a disadvantage in others. With tiny sensors, selective DoF is not practical. Cherry picking`` photographic features from the world of photography to support one view is silly, and further,it makes for a disingenuous argument.

<ul>"What about tilt / shift," (AR)

"You win. But then, how many ``Joe Sixpack`` SLR owners also own tilt-shift lenses? How many have even seen a Tilt/shift lens?" (EG)</ul>

Again, you're cherrypicking. You called it the death of the DSLR, which is--today--largely in the hands of advanced amateurs and professionals--not "joe sixpack". (Film SLRs had a much wider penetration model than DLSRs do.)

Do I believe your Panasonic "Wundercamera" won't occur? It doesn't particularly matter, unless it comes at the expense of professional level tools. Note: that doesn't automatically mean DSLRs; I've stated numerous times that SLRs as built today use a kludgy hack for a viewing system--one that will most likely disappear in the years ahead.

However, predicting that an increased-complexity design (interchangeable sensors) with an intrinsicly higher implementation cost will replace a lower-complexity design (interchangeable lenses) is a long shot.

kelly_flanigan1 · June 4, 2006

In pro printing clients that we have that use DSLR's and high end P&S digitals, there is a trend to NOT want to mention they actually use the high end P&S many times for pro work. This reminds me of the 1960's, where a Nikon slr shooter would say they used a "Nikon F", since admitting one used a Nikon FT, or FTn was considered abit whussy, since one was using a meter!. Folks who used Nikkormats and Nikons with meters often said their images were shot with a Nikon F, to not admit they used a meter. These folks also walked to school and home both ways uphill. :) Today many of our pro clients we print for are always Mr Dslr, and and only use their high end P&S for emergencies.. Its funny how their dslr's exif files have taggs for P&S digitals! The trend is folks really like high end P&S digitals, but a pros ego cannot fathom admitting that they use them to the public.

b_hall1 · June 4, 2006

SLR and DSLR are professional in nature because they allow interchangeable lenes...

There is no do-all lens because engineering involves compromises...and the professional has priorities rather than ignorances.

There will always be professional supply sources...but the prosumer will accept some of the nature of the professional so as to maintain economy-of-scale for professional supply.

rjacksonphoto · June 4, 2006

Still using my D50 and D200 like crazy. Sold my FZ-5 after a month. What was I thinking?!! Selling the future of digital photography? Seriously, it was because it had way too much noise at higher ISOs and took forever to focus at the long end in all but the best of light.

Frankly, the Olympus C-7070 is ten times the camera the FZ-5 is.

andrew robertson · June 4, 2006

"``Nonsense``? An honest observation/prediction is ``nonsense``?"

I don't think any prognostication of the future, especially one laden with hyperbole, could

be labeled honest.

"Pushed by those who thought or think they?ll miss out on something if they don?t own a

DSLR. Even as the DSLRs `keep coming``, high-end P&Ss keep gaining-fast."

No, high-end P&S cameras are where they were five years ago in comparison to the DSLR.

I don't think very many people fooling themselves into thinking they need a DSLR, when a

P&S digicam would do. Hell, how did SLR cameras manage to sell when there were so

many all-in-one cameras that would do the job? If you look at the Olympus foray into

these kinds of cameras (the IS-3 DLX comes to mind) you'll see that it takes a lot more

than a zoom lens to make a high end camera.

"Nearly every SLR option is already available to digicam owners excepting real wide angle,

(corrected) lenses. But even there, in any digicam capable of mounting additional lenses,

wide angle OEM lenses and third party wide angle lenses abound."

Really? How about ultra fast lenses (f/1.4 or faster)? Perspective control / tilt shift lenses?

circular fisheye lenses? Soft focus? The list goes on. I think you are confusing generic

over-the-lens teleconverters (which have always had problems with image quality) with

'lenses'.

"DOF which can be put to good use. Limited depth of field is also a severe handicap in

macro imaging for instance, wherein I have to use either expensive ``macro`` lenses on

my SLR or attach expensive diopter lenses. With my FZ20 for example, great macro with

great depth of field comes with the lens, with no additional costs attending."

I don't think you are really getting tons more depth of field that with an SLR camera. At

close up distances, DOF is severely limited by the shallow plane of focus. With an SLR

camera you can get a TS-E 90mm lens and have sufficient depth of field without even

stopping down much.

But extremely deep DOF can be a handicap too. Part of the strength of a long lens is

being able to isolate a subject from the background, which isn't as doable with 'equivalent'

focal lengths. You still need a real telephoto lens.

"You/we don't have ``that`` (whatever) in an SLR. Low-end DSLRs are severely crippled in

their abilty to utilize all the benefits of high-end DSLRs.

``Cherry picking`` photographic features from the world of photography to hold up SLRs

won't work and further, it makes for a disingenuous argument.

Of course the obverse is true of nearly everything you say: you (``Joe Sixpack``) do not

usually have all those ``exotic`` imaging capacities either. Each feature you named

requires special lenses, which again, ``Joe`` usually doesn't own or cannot afford."

Low-end DSLRs are what they are, but they are not 'severely crippled'. Any low end 6 MP

DSLR can comfortably blow most any 8-10 MP digicam for image quality.

Pointing out the reasons that your P&S wundercam will fail by showing why DSLR users

wouldn't take to it is hardly cherry-picking. Joe Sixpack is voting with his dollar in favor of

DSLRs and steering more and more clear of the 'advanced' P&S digicam. Especially now

that a DSLR is cheaper than the high end 'advanced' digicams. I can imagine even Joe

Sixpack can afford a 50 f/1.8 lens for $69. Where's an advanced digicam with an f/1.8

lens? NOWHERE!

"You mean of course the average ``YOUNG` Joe, a sometimes clueless population who

also has embraced Ipods and other electronic paraphernalia issued like candy to candy

hungry kids."

No, I'm pretty sure that I mean the average mom, the average dad, the average man on the

street will have no use for anything more complicated than a phonecam. Most people

don't want or need manual controls or 400mm+ equivalent stabilized lenses. They want

something for happy snaps. This is more than 90% of the public we're talking about.

People have cell phones already, and seem to love the phone cameras despite the horrid

image quality.

"By `real` I suppose you mean SLR/DSLR bodies? By those definitions then, P&Ss are not

`real` cameras. But since neither of us has a say in what a ``camera`` is, most of us call

P&Ss `real cameras`."

To many people a 'real' camera is one that is an element in a system, which can be

adapted for a variety of uses. You know, the camera you'd choose for the job at hand. I

don't know of many people who are keen on photography and are content with only a P&S

except for something to bring along when their other cameras are too large.

"``My`` camera is an amalgam of thoughts and predictions coalesced in a series of

projections.Not my thoughts, but others. Not my predictions either. Putting all of them

together here in my ``epiphany`` was an exercise in editing, since most were/are already

floating out there in the non-proprietary photographic ether."

No, this camera you have dreamed up is just a regurgitation of the current norm in the

'advanced' P&S world. You haven't even named a single feature that isn't in a current P&S

camera! Direct to optical media recording? Sony has it, and people don't want it! 1.5 KG

in weight? Why the heck would I choose it over a DSLR? 6x5 sensor? I hope you are

talking about millimeters or JOKING.

"In the Interim, I?ll likely buy the Panasonic 4/3rds L1 with the kit lens, waiting for the

50-200 OLY and the projected 50-500 Whosever."

Why not choose a tool on its merits, instead of buying it to make a statement about

futurism? The Panasonic is larger by far than proven good Canon and Nikon and Pentax

DSLRs. And while you sit there with your Panasonic, waiting for lenses that may never

come, others are outside shooting pictures with lenses that have been out for decades.

In the Interim, I?ll likely buy the Panasonic 4/3rds L1 with the kit lens, waiting for the

50-200 OLY and the projected 50-500 Whosever.

"My ``Wundercamera``, like all before it may not be the be all to end all cameras. At

3,000 Euros plus, it won?t fit in the budgets of many ``Joe Sixpacks`` either.

But for the ``Pros``, whose multiple bodies & ``plethora`` of lenses costs them into the

many tens of thousands, a +3,000 Euro ``Wundercamera`` will be a lark, a literal walk in

the park."

One thing you have failed to mention is the advantage that this camera will give you. It

seems that it'll be about the same size and weight as a DSLR. It won't have a direct optical

viewfinder (which is crippling). It'll be much MORE expensive than a DSLR. Because the

lens is fixed, you have much less flexibility unless you intend to offer it with a 14-600 f/

1.4 equivalent stabilized tilt shift macro lens. If you do, I think you'll have to revise your

weight estimate to about 250 pounds. You are also ignoring a fundamental fact - the

'pros' already have DSLRs. This camera will save the working pro neither time nor money.

"One trend I`ve noticed in forums is how many SLR/DSLR owners also own and shoot

high-end, high performance P&Ss, many of the P&Ss being Panasonic FZs (Fluzis).

Other Panasonic cameras, all of them with fast lenses and image stabilization (every

Panasonic digital camera has image stabilization, an industry first), are literally ``finding

their way`` into the pockets of journalists, reporters, engineers, doctors, dentists,

insurance investigators-etc., the Lumix Lx1 being a particular ``pocket`` favorite."

Here we go with the hyperbole again. The fact is that P&S digicams have been finding

their way into the pockets of people for a decade now. Almost everybody who wants one

already has one that's good enough, though, if P&S sales figures are any metric. Canon

and Nikon make far more money on their DSLRs because P&S sales have been tapering off

for years.

"As for sales? The ``pros`` can?t wait: light weight, medium format, fast ultrazoom

lenses, less than the weight (and cost) of a Canon EOS DSLR ``Robocamera`` with one f/

2.8 lens, able to record two or more minutes of broadcast quality video, replaceable

(upgradeable) sensors and image stabilization all in an open (non-propriety) format?

Hell, some folks, many of them ``Joe Sixpacks``, will hock their houses or sell their

Bassin' boats for a ``Wundercamera``."

Again, where the hell have you been? Medium format is dying a rather smooth, quick

death. A good MF digital rig costs $30000, and every SINGLE ONE OF THEM excepting the

Mamiya ZD is both a kludge ergonomically and operates only to ISO 400. So rather than

the already existing, ever more affordable DSLR becoming better and less expensive, you

are predicting that the kludgy, awkward, expensive digital backs that are kludged on to an

existing camera will somehow evolve into a more comprehensive system than a DSLR, even

with a crippled fixed lens?

You have the right to spout this kind of hyperbole driven futurism if you wish. I just don't

think you have the right to expect anyone to swallow it. And going by the responses you

have received in this thread, the tide is sorely against you.

._._z · June 4, 2006

Ed forgot to mention levitation modules and the built-in THC contract-drip.

edgreene · June 4, 2006

Kevin Connery: Can you elaborate on how an interchangeable sensor would differ from a "digital back"?"Backs" are usually solid and moreover thicker. Sensors are thin, like memory cards. The Hubble Telescope (I`ll call it that or HT) is, with all its complexity, a ``plug and play`` device. When something goes wrong, they fly the new part up, take out the old, insert the new and restore power, like a bus sized Windows PC/camera.No existing sensors carry the support electronics, and each sensor requires different logic, if only to handle different cell geometry or size--much less differences in filtration, if a Bayer mosaic (or similar, such as Sony's RGBE) is used.The `Wundercamera`` will take Thinking Outside The Box; (TOTB). Your operative phrase (above) then is ``existing sensors`` when Wundercamera is a device of the future.How so? Kelly identified a fact. You're mocking a position that hasn't been shown.I ``mocked`` a statement so well known it goes without saying. And for that matter, to be utterly redundant to Kelly: nearly 100% of every camera ever made, film or digital, has had fixed lenses. See how unnecessary it is to say so?" but they are still in reality very short lenses with proportionately large depth of field." (AR) "DOF which can be put to good use. Limited depth of field is also a severe handicap in macro imaging for instance, wherein I have to use either expensive ``macro`` lenses on my SLR or attach expensive diopter lenses. With my FZ20 for example, great macro with great depth of field comes with the lens, with no additional costs attending."That's great if (and only if) a strong depth of field is desired. While that's beneficial in some circumstances, it's equally a disadvantage in others. With tiny sensors, selective DoF is not practical.Talking DOF is a shibboleth often used by DSLR folks to denigrate P&S cameras. No matter: the ``Wundercamera` will have a 645 size sensor so that argument is moot.

"What about tilt / shift," (AR) "You win. But then, how many ``Joe Sixpack`` SLR owners also own tilt-shift lenses? How many have even seen a Tilt/shift lens?" (EG)Again, you're cherrypicking. You called it the death of the DSLR, which is--today--largely in the hands of advanced amateurs and professionals--not "joe sixpack".I�d debate whether the ``advanced amateurs`` aren`t ordinary people with deep pockets. Even there, you don�t need deep pockets to be a DSLR owner, not if the EOS Rebel, selling like hotcakes, is your benchmark. I`d wager 95 of every 100 of those owners never owned a film SLR, just jumped into photography from a digital point and shoot. While it is true most long time professionals have gone digital, they make up but a tiny fraction of the total number of DSLRs sold to date, the Rebel again dominating in that genre. (Film SLRs had a much wider penetration model than DLSRs do.) Because they�ve had seven decades to do so.Do I believe your Panasonic "Wundercamera" won't occur? It doesn't particularly matter, unless it comes at the expense of professional level tools.Why would it not be considered ``professional``? And what ``professional`` level tools? DSLRs? They�ve peaked already. I`d also wager that professionals will jump to it, and with the same rapidity they abandoned film. Professionals want the tools that work and produce results and it that is the ``Wundercamera`` - so be it.Note: that doesn't automatically mean DSLRs; I've stated numerous times that SLRs as built today use a kludgy hack for a viewing system--one that will most likely disappear in the years ahead. However, predicting that an increased-complexity design (interchangeable sensors)Made at a time when that is how it was done: hardwired, instead of modular.with an intrinsicly higher implementation cost will replace a lower-complexity design (interchangeable lenses) is a long shot.Not for you or me to say. Again, the ``Wundercamera`` will be modular, like the HT, plug and play in that those engineers will have TOTB. Most automobiles today are themselves modular, even the high end models, though there is a large degree of hand finishing for the Lexus types. I`d wager even the lens will be modular: indexed on a built-in register inside the body. Crack a lens: buy a replacement, take off a screw or two-slide it in, tighten down the screws and you`re back in business after fine-tuning it with the included software; thinking outside the (the ``modern`` but stodgy way of doing things) box.

._._z · June 4, 2006

You'd wager? How much? In what specific time-frame?

andrew robertson · June 4, 2006

Why not take it a step further and have a lens that attaches with threaded screw mount or

even a bayonet? The bayonet seems like it'd be good for quickly interchanging lenses.

andrew robertson · June 4, 2006

"Talking DOF is a shibboleth often used by DSLR folks to denigrate P&S cameras."

Mahabone's a good word to throw out there as well. The fact is that this is a REAL problem.

jacob_napthine · June 4, 2006

Ed, you are not a seer. You are a rude twit.

Are you really offended that people cant take this ridiculous fantasy of yours seriously? If you are, you need to talk to someone, mate.

edgreene · June 4, 2006

Andrew Robertson: No, high-end P&S cameras are where they were five years ago in comparison to the DSLR.10MP and catching up fast. 5 years ago P&S were primitive, today they are thriving little beasts nipping at the heels of DSLRs.I don't think very many people fooling themselves into thinking they need a DSLR, when a P&S digicam would do.Your point not mine. But I agree.Hell, how did SLR cameras manage to sell when there were so many all-in-one cameras that would do the job?They didn't-sell that good. But SLRs had their fans and sold well, but never nowhere near the numbers of P&S film cameras. P&S film cameras still sell by the tens of millions today.If you look at the Olympus foray into these kinds of cameras (the IS-3 DLX comes to mind) you'll see that it takes a lot more than a zoom lens to make a high end camera.I'm not at all familiar with any Olympus camera so I will not comment so the point is lost on me.Really? How about ultra fast lenses (f/1.4 or faster)?You mean like my Canon FD 55mm f/1:1.2 asph? How many times have I used it in relation to the many times I've used my EF 28-70 f/2.8? And I've answered that point in this thread already.Perspective control / tilt shift lenses?Already answered.circular fisheye lenses?Nope, gotcha there.Soft focus? The list goes on. I think you are confusing generic over-the-lens teleconverters (which have always had problems with image quality) with 'lenses'.And I think you don't know anything about modern front mounted teleconverters: Nikons, Panasonics, Canons and Olympus. Most of them give their conversion benefits without any loss of light, something no rear mount teleconverter can say. And of those named, none show CA nor much in the way of color fringing at maximum zoom.I don't think you are really getting tons more depth of field that with an SLR camera.BS. If there is one valid observation/complaint about P&Ss is their near maddening propensity to demonstrate too much DOF, not too little.At close up distances, DOF is severely limited by the shallow plane of focus.Not with P&Ss: (see the detail in the hinge below: hand-held, available light shot)With an SLR camera you can get a TS-E 90mm lens and have sufficient depth of field without even stopping down much.That eyeglass macro shot? Wide open, DOF out the wazoo with the same Leica lens.But extremely deep DOF can be a handicap too. Part of the strength of a long lens is being able to isolate a subject from the background, which isn't as doable with 'equivalent' focal lengths.Let's see: subject distance from lens + distance of subject from the background also counts. If the background is far enough away, and my FZ20 is at f/2.8, instant isolation.You still need a real telephoto lens.And you need to visit some FZ galleries to prove yourself wrong.Low-end DSLRs are what they are, but they are not 'severely crippled'. Any low end 6 MP DSLR can comfortably blow most any 8-10 MP digicam for image quality.totally unsubstantiated. The 8MP FZ30 make perfect, perfect 11 x 14 photos. Which is all we need to prove.Pointing out the reasons that your P&S wundercam will fail by showing why DSLR users wouldn't take to it is hardly cherry-picking.From what I know about camera owners (all), they (DLSR owners) will jump ship as soon as ``Wnudrcamera`` is announced. They will flood forums with speculative talk, moan about how they just bought this or that so they won't be able to buy it when it's released. Joe Sixpack is voting with his dollar in favor of DSLRs and steering more and more clear of the 'advanced' P&S digicam.You don't know that. Neither do I. But when a person can buy an image stabilized P&S for under $300, I seriously doubt your assertion. There are ``Joes`` who will miss house payments to own a Rebel, or miss a car payment for a lens, but most ``Joes`` buy P&Ss, as has always been the case. Especially now that a DSLR is cheaper than the high end 'advanced' digicams. I can imagine even Joe Sixpack can afford a 50 f/1.8 lens for $69. Where's an advanced digicam with an f/1.8 lens? NOWHERE!Where�s the DSLR that can go 36mm to 432mm image stabilized @ f/2.8 throughout the zoom range? Or go out to 735mm image stabilized @ f/2.8 (With Nikon ED 1.7)? Or do a macro (like the one below ) with the same lens?! Or go to 18mm wide with a $200 wide angle attachment?No, I'm pretty sure that I mean the average mom, the average dad, the average man on the street will have no use for anything more complicated than a phonecam.But yet you suggest they want a DSLR with all those buttons? Make up your mind.Most people don't want or need manual controls or 400mm+ equivalent stabilized lenses. They want something for happy snaps. This is more than 90% of the public we're talking about. People have cell phones already, and seem to love the phone cameras despite the horrid image quality.Which kind of flies in the face of your declaration they are the ones buying up the DSLRs.To many people a 'real' camera is one that is an element in a system,They want ``system`` cameras or sipmple cameras? Mak up their minds.which can be adapted for a variety of uses. You know, the camera you'd choose for the job at hand. I don't know of many people who are keen on photography and are content with only a P&S except for something to bring along when their other cameras are too large.Now you're suggesting they want both.No, this camera you have dreamed up is just a regurgitation of the current norm in the 'advanced' P&S world. You haven't even named a single feature that isn't in a current P&S camera!Oh, interchangeable sensors is a feature in present day P&Ss? Which ones? Direct to optical media recording? Sony has it, and people don't want it! 1.5 KG in weight? Why the heck would I choose it over a DSLR?Because it would kick DSLR butt.6x5 sensor? I hope you are talking about millimeters or JOKING.Catch up on your thread reading and you'll discover your answer.Why not choose a tool on its merits, instead of buying it to make a statement about futurism????The Panasonic is larger by far than proven good Canon and Nikon and Pentax DSLRs.What are you trying to say? Which ``Panasonic is larger by far than proven good Canon and Nikon and Pentax DSLRs`` are you referring to? The big FZs or the even larger Panasonic DMC-L1 DSLR? Which? And while you sit there with your Panasonic, waiting for lenses that may never come, others are outside shooting pictures with lenses that have been out for decades.I shoot Canon FD, Pentax K, KAF, KAF2, Canon EOS and Panasonic FZs. I take out the door what I'll shoot that day. I may even have lenses older than you.One thing you have failed to mention is the advantage that this camera will give you. It seems that it'll be about the same size and weight as a DSLR.It may be any size but could weigh at least as much as my Canon EOS 1n w/Power Booster and f/2.8 28-70 lens.

It won't have a direct optical viewfinder (which is crippling).Oh, you know, with the certainty you know your street address that it won't have a direct optical viewfinder? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Because I never mentioned it having such?It'll be much MORE expensive than a DSLR.You know that too? Dang!Because the lens is fixed, you have much less flexibility unless you intend to offer it with a 14-600 f/ 1.4 equivalent stabilized tilt shift macro lens.That's so ridiculous...but I'll bite. No one reading this could have predicted a camera with a 36-432mm image stabilized f/2.8 throughout the zoom range lens until Panasonic surprised every damn body with the FZ20. And a Leica lens to boot! So while a faster lens speed (say f/2.0) would bring the weight up, lens speed is one of the least of the FZ20 attributes.If you do, I think you'll have to revise your weight estimate to about 250 pounds. You are also ignoring a fundamental fact - the 'pros' already have DSLRs.Working ``pros` (I still carry my association card and PJ ID, though I'm retired) will absolutely love this camera, at least the PJs will. PJs will be able to dump 30 pounds out of their bags, with no serious penalty accruing to their shooting ability. This camera will save the working pro neither time nor money.Maybe because you're not a working ``pro`` you can say that so easily. But for a camera that will be able to go from shooting in the field to shooting studio lights without a hitch, shoot infra-red, double as a video camera and on and on and do that within a menu or manually?Here we go with the hyperbole again.You don`t find it interesting that every Panasonic P&S has image stabilization or it that what you call ``hyperbole``?The fact is that P&S digicams have been finding their way into the pockets of people for a decade now. Almost everybody who wants one already has one that's good enough, though, if P&S sales figures are any metric. Canon and Nikon make far more money on their DSLRs because P&S sales have been tapering off for years.Nikon is falling on their butts trying to keep up with Canon, who, having sold all the likely PJ types on DSLRs, are now looking around for fresh sales. Canon is about to ``whore`` the Rebel line, dragging Rebel down to high end P&S prices in search of sales. I have no idea of how many people got a chuckle out of your ``because P&S sales have been tapering off for years`` quip.Again, where the hell have you been? Medium format is dying a rather smooth, quick death.Better not tell them that, especially those who switched over to digital.A good MF digital rig costs $30000, and every SINGLE ONE OF THEM excepting the Mamiya ZD is both a kludge ergonomically and operates only to ISO 400. So rather than the already existing, ever more affordable DSLR becoming better and less expensive, you are predicting that the kludgy, awkward, expensive digital backs that are kludged on to an existing camera will somehow evolve into a more comprehensive system than a DSLR, even with a crippled fixed lens?Yep!You have the right to spout this kind of hyperbole driven futurism if you wish. I just don't think you have the right to expect anyone to swallow it.Read it and print it, rough it up then use it for TP as far as I`m concerned. And going by the responses you have received in this thread, the tide is sorely against you.Ain`t my camera so ``tide is sorely going against you`` doesn�t matter.People laughed at The Wright Brothers and their ``foolish contraption``. I wish it were ``my camera`` instead of theirs (the thinkers). I`d have those hoots to dance to all the way to the bank.

neild · June 4, 2006

a new range of ultra-modern manual-focus lenses which will incorporate such features as hyperfocal distance markers and aperture rings. These will represent a true advancement over the current lines of lenses available present day.

andrew robertson · June 4, 2006

Without getting into a point by point rebuttal of your point by point rebuttal of my point by

point rebuttal, I will just say that I don't think your camera is going to happen. We already

have the DSLR. It seems good enough for what it does, it's getting cheaper all the time, and

it's flexible. Your dream camera seems to be a neat idea, but I don't think any fixed lens

camera will ever replace interchangeable lens cameras. It's been tried before. It'll be tried

again.

kevinconnery · June 5, 2006

<ul>Kevin Connery:

Can you elaborate on how an interchangeable sensor would differ from a "digital back"? (KC)

"Backs" are usually solid and moreover thicker. Sensors are thin, like memory cards.

The Hubble Telescope (I`ll call it that or HT) is, with all its complexity, a ``plug and play`` device. When something goes wrong, they fly the new part up, take out the old, insert the new and restore power, like a bus sized Windows PC/camera. (EG)</ul>

You're not familiar with chip design or D/A signal subsystems, are you?

Replacing a specific sensor with an identical one wouldn't require the imaging subsystem to be changed; replacing a sensor with a different one would--or would require a much more elaborate imaging engine, with added complexity and cost.

<ul>Your operative phrase (above) then is ``existing sensors`` when Wundercamera is a device of the future. (EG)</ul>

I await new imaging models to be developed. <a href="http://www.tanner.com/Labs/research/technologies/mcm/default.htm">MCM</a> could make this possible, but MCM tech has been around for nearly 15 years, and is still not in widespread use. Nevertheless, doing so would require more than replacing the "sensor"; you'd still be replacing the imaging system, no matter what you called it.

Similarly, while chip yields improve, larger chips will still cost more than smaller ones. Not just because of direct real estate (e.g. 10 chips per die vs 100), but failure rates in fab. (if a die has 1 defect and 10 sensors fit on that die, you lose 1 chip--netting 9 sensors. If a die has 1 defect and one sensor fits on that die, your net is zero. The larger the defect rate, the more impact this has.)

I'm curious as to when--if ever--a 645 sized sensor would becomes the norm, even in your so-called wundercam for professional use.

<ul>

with an intrinsicly higher implementation cost will replace a lower-complexity design (interchangeable lenses) is a long shot. (KC)

Not for you or me to say. Again, the ``Wundercamera`` will be modular, like the HT, plug and play in that those engineers will have TOTB. Most automobiles today are themselves modular, even the high end models, though there is a large degree of hand finishing for the Lexus types. (EG)</ul>

If you can make guesses without experience on the engineering side, I can make estimates with experience. In that light, it's not for you to tell me it's "Not for you or me to say" when you've already had your say.

<ul>Talking DOF is a shibboleth often used by DSLR folks to denigrate P&S cameras. (EG)</ul>

How so? A 35mm P&S camera had the same DoF as a 35mm SLR did, with the good and bad accruing.

Choice of DoF is a legitimate issue. Just because you claim you "don't have one "Artistic" bone in [your] body" doesn't mean that technical/craft issues of that nature aren't important to others. (You did, after all, claim superiority for the large depth of field--dismissing a rebuttal as being a shibboleth is disingenuous. (But I do see that this is your MO.)

<ul>I don't think very many people fooling themselves into thinking they need a DSLR, when a P&S digicam would do. (AR)

Your point not mine. But I agree. (EG)</ul>

Perhaps. You, yourself, though, insisted "Nothing less than a new or gently used "1" type body will do for weddings and social events", so it becomes even less clear whether your 'floozi wundercam' is for professionals or joe sixpack: you've dismissed both the casual shooter's needs, AND the professional shooters needs.

<ul>And I think you don't know anything about modern front mounted teleconverters (EG)</ul>

I believe that is a correct statement. Your understanding of optics may be greater than your knowledge of digital imaging engineering, but it's not apparent here.

<ul>At close up distances, DOF is severely limited by the shallow plane of focus. (AR)

Not with P&Ss (EG)</ul>

Make up your mind. Is your wundercam a small sensor or large? If you're claiming a 645 sensor, you lose this argument--but you do gain access to the shibboleth of DSLR users. Consistency?

<ul>Low-end DSLRs are what they are, but they are not 'severely crippled'. Any low end 6 MP DSLR can comfortably blow most any 8-10 MP digicam for image quality.(AR)

totally unsubstantiated. The 8MP FZ30 make perfect, perfect 11 x 14 photos. Which is all we need to prove. (EG)</ul>

My "small" prints are 8x10. My typical prints are 16x20. My large prints are 30x40. Andrew's statement is "totally substantiated" in that environment. In a journalistic environment, with 60-85 line screen printing, or for a casual user who will rarely make a print larger than 8x10, it may well be true. But that is not the entire universe of photography, as much as you seem to want it to be--"all we need to prove" is a false assertion.

<ul>

1.5 KG in weight? Why the heck would I choose it over a DSLR? (AR)

Because it would kick DSLR butt. (EG)</ul>

Circular reasoning. You're saying your wundercam will displace DSLRs because "it would kick DSLR butt", and it kicks DSLR butt because it ... kicks DLSR butt. If you're going to be that sloppy, at least add one or two steps to hide the circularity.

<ul>No one reading this could have predicted a camera with a 36-432mm image stabilized f/2.8 throughout the zoom range lens until Panasonic surprised every damn body with the FZ20. (EG)</ul>

Unsupported. That lens is an extension of known art, given the physical requirements--imaging circle being one of them. Nevertheless, it's not a 36 to 432mm lens; it's a 6mm-72mm lens.

<ul>Working ``pros` (I still carry my association card and PJ ID, though I'm retired) will absolutely love this camera, at least the PJs will. PJs will be able to dump 30 pounds out of their bags, with no serious penalty accruing to their shooting ability. (EG)</ul>

For that purpose, it sounds like a great camera. PJ, however, is not the limits of photography, no matter how often you prattle about your shots being "mostly unplanned", or that "anything that veers too far from "Real life" seems, as I noted before: "pretentious."

You may find your current panasonic wundercam "wunderful". That doesn't make it a universal truth. Nor are your "predictions" automatically correct just because you find the results to your taste. Understanding some of the technology inside the current boxes would help you avoid thinking so far out of the box that reality--current or future--is no longer within sight.

jsbc · June 5, 2006

Ramblings of a mad man.

I have no idea why someone would think you can stick a 645 size sensor in a FZ body that weighs 1.5 kilos!

I have a Pentax 645 camera: the size of a 45mm-80mm lens is huge. And it is F4. Imagine a 500mm equivalent that's F2.8. Hard to believe people want a camera the size of a Canon HD1 rather than a smaller one like the Sony R1, which is more interesting, and cheaper!

Yet Sony R1 is not really as popular as their pocket camera. Guess people want smaller cameras rather than large one.

vandit · June 5, 2006

One point no one mentioned - P&S digicams, the hallowed Panasonic FZ included, dont match up to DSLRs in that little matter of image quality.

I own 2 DSLRs and 3 7-8MP digicams, including the Panasonic LX1 (which I love, btw), and while the digicams perform admirably within their limitations, the DSLR is still a more powerful tool and also yields better, more detailed prints.... theoretical claptrap notwithstanding.

And another thought, this one triggered by the prediction of electronic displays: just b/c something is possible doesnt mean it WILL happen. Ebooks havent caused bookstores to close, and I doubt if the ability to display an image electronically is going to replace the wall print.

Vandit<div></div>

neild · June 5, 2006

Don't forget Vandit, Ed wants to do away with limited DOF. This kind of photo does not have enough DOF: can't you get everything in focus? Perhaps only with a Wundercamera...

edgreene · June 6, 2006

Neil D.: a new range of ultra-modern manual-focus lenses which will incorporate such features as hyperfocal distance markers and aperture rings. These will represent a true advancement over the current lines of lenses available present day.Don`t the Pentax ``Limited`` lenses do exactly that?

kevinconnery · June 6, 2006

<ul>I have no idea why someone would think you can stick a 645 size sensor in a FZ body that weighs 1.5 kilos! (js bc)</ul>

You don't mean that the 6-72mm lens designed to cover a 5.75mm x 4.3mm sensor wouldn't work on a 60mm x 45mm sensor? That it might have to be a little bit larger?

A 6-72mm lens f/2.8, as on the Panasonic FZ7 (Ed's choice) needs a maximum physical aperture diameter ("entrance pupil") of around 25mm--roughly 1 inch. The same angle of view coverage on a 645 sized sensor (very roughly 60-690mm) with f/2.8 aperture would require an entrance pupil of around 245mm--nearly 10 inches. Even assuming that ten inches were the actual maximum diameter of the lens (not correct--it'd have to be larger), it'd clearly be, as the original post notes, a "huge lens system". How that's going to be created at under 1.5 kg is a puzzle to me, as long as we're using "optical lenses" (Holga fans, anyone?); energy-field focusing might permit this, but that's not something we have available even in laboratory settings.

But why let physics get in the way of dreams?

Sign In

Ed Greene's epiphany: death of the DSLR

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in